Techdirt. Stories filed under "republicans"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "republicans"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:42:03 PSTMisleading Rasmussen Poll Helps Prop Up Bogus Net Neutrality Partisan DivideKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141113/15360129130/misleading-rasmussen-poll-helps-prop-up-bogus-net-neutrality-partisan-divide.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141113/15360129130/misleading-rasmussen-poll-helps-prop-up-bogus-net-neutrality-partisan-divide.shtmlnoted last week, the idea that net neutrality is a strictly partisan issue is a dated one, with several new studies indicating that support for net neutrality (and support for meaningful net neutrality rules) is increasingly common among members of all parties. As we've also noted several times, most people, when you sit them down and talk to them, understand that letting lumbering telecom duopolists write the laws, corner the market, and erect obnoxious new and arbitrary tolls, simply isn't a very bright idea or conducive to healthy technology markets.

While a number of polls and surveys were busy deconstructing the myth of the partisan neutrality feud last week, Rasmussen Reports was busy trying to perpetuate it. The firm recently issued a new poll that breathlessly proclaimed that 61% of the public opposed net neutrality rules, while also insisting that people generally really like their cable and broadband providers:

"Most Americans have opposed increased government regulation of the Internet since December 2010 when some members of the FCC began pushing “net neutrality” efforts to stop some companies from offering higher downloading speeds to preferred customers. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Americans who regularly go online rate the quality of their Internet service as good or excellent. Only five percent (5%) consider their service poor. Americans remain suspicious of the motives of those who want government regulation of the Internet. Sixty-eight percent (68%) are concerned that if the FCC does gain regulatory control over the Internet, it will lead to government efforts to control online content or promote a political agenda, with 44% who are Very Concerned."

Of course if you actually bother to investigate the questions asked of survey participants, you'll notice this amusing little ditty:

"Should the Internet remain "open" without regulation and censorship or should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?"

Note that in this case the question tells the poll taker the Internet is currently "open" and that regulation will automatically change this. Amusingly, the phrase "and censorship" is just kind of thrown in there casually, as if nobody reading the poll questions could possibly ferret out that Rasmussen is being misleading. It's effectively asking survey recipients: "Do you like government meddling -- that involves punching you squarely in the face?"

The Rasmussen poll wording also goes on to more subtly rattle ye olde "all regulation is automatically evil" saber, strongly implying that real competition would be immeasurably better than consumer protections. That's partially true -- we've obviously argued more than a few times that net neutrality violations are just the symptom of the lack of competition disease. That said, Rasmussen intentionally ignores (or doesn't actually understand) that Title II with forbearance is the best option available in the face of an immensely powerful broadband duopoly (or monopoly) that's simply not getting fixed anytime soon.

Obviously this isn't the first time Rasmussen has brought loaded questions to play. The firm's reputation as a reliable pollster took a mammoth hit back in 2010 for repeatedly being significantly off on projections, and having what Nate Silver and Five-Thirty-Eight at the time complained was "cavalier attitude toward polling convention," something Silver stated would "need to be refined" if the pollster was to ever be taken seriously again. Judging from their net neutrality poll, those necessary improvements may not be coming anytime soon.

That said, do you support net neutrality...when it involves getting kicked in the groin?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>damn-lies-and-statisticshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20141113/15360129130Mon, 17 Nov 2014 07:51:38 PSTTed Cruz Doubles Down On Misunderstanding The Internet & Net Neutrality, As Republican Engineers Call Him Out For IgnoranceMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141115/07454429157/ted-cruz-doubles-down-misunderstanding-internet-net-neutrality-as-republican-engineers-call-him-out-ignorance.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141115/07454429157/ted-cruz-doubles-down-misunderstanding-internet-net-neutrality-as-republican-engineers-call-him-out-ignorance.shtmlnutty tweet comparing net neutrality to "Obamacare." It was widely mocked -- even by many Republicans -- as it showed Cruz's ignorance of the subject at hand. In fact, one report detailed a number of comments on Ted Cruz's Facebook page from Republican/conservative engineers disagreeing with Cruz and pointing out that he's uninformed about net neutrality. Here's a sampling:

There's a lot more like that, but it highlights what we've seen before -- that while Congress likes to pretend that Republicans are against net neutrality while Democrats are for it, the reality is that net neutrality is a non-partisan issue with voters of both parties overwhelmingly supporting net neutrality.

Rather than recognize this fact, Cruz has decided to double down on it with a rambling and misguided opinion piece in the Washington Post that repeats the "Obamacare for the internet" line, and lumps in a variety of other tech issues in a confusing (and often self-contradictory) jumble. He warns against taxing internet access (good), but then joins in the total overreaction to the Commerce Department's decision to officially relinquish its (barely existent) control over ICANN, falsely claiming that this will allow the Russians, Chinese and the Iranians to control the internet. This is not true. In fact, by giving up the Commerce Department's link to ICANN, it helps cut off the path the Russians, Chinese and Iranians are trying to use to do an end run around ICANN, by giving more power to the ITU. In other words, Senator Cruz (once again) seems to not understand this policy issue at all, and is recommending a policy that is more likely to lead to the world he fears.

Then he gets back around to net neutrality, once again showing he doesn't understand it:

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.

Not a single part of that is accurate. Under the proposed plan, the government would not be in charge of determining any of those. Rather, it would make it so that no one (including the internet access providers) could block what types of products and services can be delivered. It takes a special kind of wrongness to look at a plan that is focused on making sure that no one can be blocked and argue that it means the government gets to pick what services can be delivered.

Even more bizarre, Cruz's final point is to celebrate the victory over SOPA and PIPA as a great example of protecting free speech online, ignoring the fact that it's the very same people who made the victory possible who are now fighting for net neutrality.

In 2012, those who care about Internet freedom were shocked as bills such as the Stop Online Piracy and Protect IP acts, which would regulate speech on the Internet under the guise of protecting property rights, started gaining popularity in Washington. Thankfully, online activists were quick to mobilize to protect their free-speech rights. But we must remain vigilant. Intellectual property must be defended, but any threat to quell speech on the Internet must be treated seriously and subsequently defeated.

Yes, and it's the very same online activists now trying to "protect free speech rights" by making sure that the internet stays open via net neutrality rules. And, yes, it is a free speech issue, because letting internet access providers block or discriminate against certain companies, individuals, services or types of content (such as encrypted content) will stifle free speech.

So, Cruz claims to support online activists and their push to guarantee free speech online... but at the same time opposes those very same activists and their push to protect free speech online by calling it "Obamacare for the internet"? I don't know who Ted Cruz's tech staffers are, but they might want to educate themselves a bit -- and not from the lobbyists at AT&T and Verizon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>open your mouth and...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20141115/07454429157Thu, 13 Nov 2014 06:23:00 PSTRepublicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141112/11431629122/republicans-democrats-alike-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality-why-dont-gop-officials-congress-recognize-this.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141112/11431629122/republicans-democrats-alike-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality-why-dont-gop-officials-congress-recognize-this.shtmlsurprise call for true net neutrality rules under Title II, Republicans in Congress were in a full-fledged freakout. Beyond the nutty comparisons to Obamacare or suggesting that this will lead to greater oppression in Russia, China and Iran (no, really, that claim was made), a bunch of elected Republicans in Congress sent a letter to the FCC strongly opposing Title II, insisting that it would be "beyond the scope of the FCC's authority."

For years now, we've pointed out how ridiculous it is that net neutrality became a "partisan" issue. In the early days, when it was neither, there were interesting discussions about the pros and cons of it. Once it became a "blue team v. red team" issue, most reasoned debate went out the window, and we were left with ridiculous exaggerations about "regulating the internet" or "the death of the internet." That's not helpful.

But here's the thing: actual Republicans outside of Congress support net neutrality too (though, it helps not to call it "net neutrality.") Two separate studies have come out this week making this point. First up, there was a poll from the University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication, checking in with 900 adult US residents. When not using the term net neutrality, but asking if they "favor" or "oppose" allowing broadband access providers to charge websites or streaming video services extra for faster speeds -- across the board, only 17% favored or strongly favored that idea, while 81% were opposed (37%) or strongly opposed (44%) the idea. Digging down to just the Republicans, it turns out that even more Republicans were against this than democrats. Only 13% favored (11%) or strongly favored (2%) letting broadband players set up such tollbooths, while 85% were opposed (44%) or strongly opposed (41%).

Meanwhile, a different poll released by the Internet Freedom Business Alliance (IFBA) and done by Vox Populi, surveying 1270 active voters, found similarly overwhelming results that conservatives and Republicans actually support (strongly) net neutrality:

Some 83% of voters who self-identified as “very conservative” were concerned about the possibility of ISPs having the power to “influence content” online. Only 17% reported being unconcerned. Similarly, 83% of self-identified conservatives thought that Congress should take action to ensure that cable companies do not “monopolize the Internet” or “reduce the inherent equality of the Internet” by charging some content companies for speedier access.

A few months ago, we wrote about a great argument made by a "self-identified conservative" arguing why Republicans should support reclassification, mainly to block out the harmful monopolistic tendencies of broadband providers. And it appears that conservatives and Republicans (and, of course, those aren't always the same thing, but there is a lot of overlap) intuitively agree with this position.

So why don't their elected representatives? The explanation that still seems to make the most sense is that the money is too good in opposing net neutrality.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>who-are-they-representinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20141112/11431629122Wed, 5 Nov 2014 21:08:46 PSTNow In Charge Of Congress, GOP Plans To Give Up Its Own Constitutional Powers To The Obama AdministrationMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141105/16134829060/now-charge-congress-gop-plans-to-give-up-its-own-authority-to-democratic-administration-trade-agreements.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141105/16134829060/now-charge-congress-gop-plans-to-give-up-its-own-authority-to-democratic-administration-trade-agreements.shtmltoo badly by the time the 2016 elections come around. The Washington Post has a short segment on the "quick votes" the GOP is planning for January to show that rather than blocking everything, it can actually pass some stuff -- including "fast track" legislation on trade agreements:

With the 2016 presidential campaign already looming large, McConnell (Ky.) and Boehner (Ohio) are both eager to shed the party’s image as an unruly collection of obstructionists and far-right ideologues.

The remedy, they have decided: Act quickly to send President Obama bills with bipartisan support to fast-track international trade agreements, repeal an unpopular tax on medical devices and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

We've talked about this "Fast Track" authority for years (it's also referred to as "Trade Promotion Authority"). The issue is that, under the Constitution, Congress and not the executive branch, has the sole power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations." The executive branch has always been able to negotiate agreements, but it's Congress that has the power to regulate. "Fast Track" authority or Trade Promotion Authority is effectively Congress handing that right over to the executive branch, by saying that the only thing it can do when brought a trade agreement is vote up or down on the whole thing, rather than actually look at the details of the agreement and send the USTR back to fix the problematic parts.

You can understand why the USTR and the administration want the fast track to go, because it means they can actually promise things during negotiations that are more difficult to promise without that power. But it does seem very, very odd that a Republican Congress that seems to constantly complain about too much power in the executive branch, seems to have no problem whatsoever abdicating its Constitutional powers to that very same executive branch on major trade agreements that could reshape regulations worldwide.

Part of the problem, of course, is that people have been told that this is about "free trade" agreements -- and Republicans claim to be in support of free trade. But that's wrong. The big agreements, like the TPP and TTIP/TAFTA are not about "free trade" for the most part. Most tariff barriers have been chipped away for years. These agreements are about regulations and locking in certain regulations to limit the sovereignty of various nations to pass their own regulations. It's just protectionism in a different colored coat, dressed up to look like free trade -- complete with a dollop of extra sovereignty for corporations. Thus, it seems very odd that a Republican controlled Congress -- one that insists it's all about the Constitution -- has decided that it's first order of business is to give up one of Congress' main constitutional powers to an administration controlled by the opposing party.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>say-what-now?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20141105/16134829060Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:42:29 PDTIf GOP Takes Senate Next Week, Expect The CIA Torture Report To DisappearMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141030/17263228991/if-gop-takes-senate-next-week-expect-cia-torture-report-to-disappear.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141030/17263228991/if-gop-takes-senate-next-week-expect-cia-torture-report-to-disappear.shtmldragging its feet on declassifying the executive summary of the CIA torture report that the Senate Intelligence Committee put together: it knows there's a decent chance that the Republicans will win the Senate next week, and suddenly the report may disappear from view. As you may recall, the Intelligence Committee (with support from GOP Senators) voted to declassify the 480 page executive summary of the 6,300 page report (which the Senate spent $40 million putting together). Multiple leaks concerning the report have suggested that it's devastating and details how terrible the CIA's torture program was, how it was completely ineffective and how the CIA lied about it all.

But most of the support for releasing the report is coming from the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Dianne Feinstein (who sides with the NSA on plenty of stuff, but is more willing to challenge the CIA). But if the Republicans take the Senate next week, then the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee will likely shift to Senator Richard Burr, who has made it quite clear that he's on the CIA's team and against the public interest.

"I personally don't
believe that anything that goes on in the intelligence committee should ever be
discussed publicly," Burr told reporters in March. "If I had my way,
with the exception of nominees, there would never be a public intelligence
hearing."

It's also expected that Burr will try to muzzle Ron Wyden and Mark Udall (if Udall is re-elected, which is iffy at this point):

If Burr takes over as chair, he could easily sideline the committee's
vocal civil libertarian bloc led by Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and bolstered by Mark
Udall (D-Colo.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), two senators who've called for
Brennan's resignation.

Udall, in particular, drew blunt criticisms from Burr earlier
this year for disclosing the existence of an internal CIA review of the
detention and interrogation program that Democrats believe vindicates their own
study.

"I think Mark did make some public releases that were
committee-sensitive information, but that's for the committee internally to
handle," Burr told reporters in March. "My concern is that
the release of information could potentially cause the losses of life to
Americans. That to me, is a threshold that should be addressed."

As for the torture report itself, Burr has already said that the report is inaccurate and he's against it being released in any form. When a group of religious leaders asked him to support releasing the report, Burr told them he didn't think the report was accurate:

Last year, Burr drew criticism from more than 190 North Carolina religious leaders, including Christians, Jews, Quakers, and Muslims, for opposing the release of the Senate's post-9/11 torture report.

"The U.S. does not condone torture, but torture has been done by our citizens and in our country's name," reads a letter the religious leaders sent Burr. "We are writing to you as fellow people of faith to support the release of the ... report."

Disappointing the religious groups, Burr responded in a letter saying he opposed making the report public due to factual inaccuracies contained within the report. "I believe the American public should be provided with reports that are based on accurate facts," he said.

Given all of this, if the GOP does win, it seems like the only way the public may ever see the details is if someone steps up and leaks the damn thing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>bye-byehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20141030/17263228991Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:10:00 PDTNet Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' -- Or Why Republicans Should Support ReclassificationMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20140916/12114928537/net-neutrality-is-not-government-takeover-internet-why-republicans-should-support-reclassification.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20140916/12114928537/net-neutrality-is-not-government-takeover-internet-why-republicans-should-support-reclassification.shtml
So, while we don't normally dive into any kind of partisan spin on things, because the rhetoric has become absolutely ridiculous on net neutrality, it seemed worth discussing why the Republican claims that reclassification under Title II is some sort of "government takeover of the internet" or "regulating the internet" are just wrong. And we'll go one step further and point out why Republicans should actually be standing right along side their Democratic colleagues in supporting reclassification. This shouldn't be a partisan issue at all, but a bipartisan effort to make sure that the internet remains free and open for true innovation and competition (the kind of thing that both parties should agree on).

We'll start by pointing to a fantastic article from James Heaney, a self-identified conservative, who goes into great detail explaining why free marketers should support reclassification of broadband access by the FCC. He covers a lot of ground that we've discussed before, but does so in a clear and concise manner that makes it easy to read. In short, he notes that free markets and competition are great for innovation -- and that while regulation can often get in the way of those things, so can monopoly power. Further, he highlights how internet infrastructure is effectively a natural monopoly (just like we discussed... a decade ago). And, thus, it makes sense to have very limited regulation to keep the natural monopoly from getting out of control and more importantly, to stop the natural monopoly from hindering all sorts of other innovation. Heaney's argument goes into a lot more detail, including a discussion of why the FCC was crazy wrong in its 2002 decision to declare cable a Title I "information service" rather than a Title II "telecommunications service," and why now is the time for the FCC to correct that mistake. Either way, he notes, the nature of broadband -- like highways or electricity -- makes it clear that it's a natural monopoly:

That’s because – guess what! – internet service is a market where natural monopolies prevail. Just like with the electric company, most of the cables and most of the network are already purchased and deployed. Adding a new customer often means literally just flipping a switch at HQ, or – at most – laying a few yards of cable to an existing network. In the end, the more the company sells, the less it costs them. Over time, the big companies beat the small ones on cost, gobble them up… then lobby the government to freeze out potential competitors, while jacking up costs and slashing service quality,.

If you have ever interacted with Comcast in any way, you already know about their “service” “quality” – the infinite wait times, the incompetent “help,” the constant upselling, the blatant lies (usually about credits they promise), the desperate measures. Since they are our local monopoly, I don’t hear too much about the other monopolists out there, but I understand Time-Warner isn’t any better. It is a fact that customers despise their ISPs on average:

What you may not realize is that they are overcharging you, too, like textbook monopolists.

From there, he points out that often the best way to deal with natural monopolies is through the threat of a government crackdown, rather than actual regulation. This was actually a position that we supported for a long time as well. I can't seem to find a reference to it now, but I'm pretty sure that this was the suggestion of Professor Ed Felten as well, noting that a sort of "Sword of Damocles" dangling above broadband providers' heads might be the best form of net neutrality as we learned more. However, as Heaney notes, we have learned more and that plan has now failed, thanks to the appeals court ruling in favor of Verizon (Heaney incorrectly says it's Comcast -- possibly confusing it with a different net neutrality lawsuit). And, thus, he notes, without the hovering threat, the playing field is now open for monopoly-power abuse -- which is the kind of thing that Republicans and conservatives should be against:

So now the delay-and-harass strategy has failed. The monopolists have a blank check from the law, and they are exploiting it with tremendous rapacity (as we’ve seen in the series of Netflix stickups, which picked up the moment net neutrality collapsed). Perhaps the next most attractive option is to pull a Reagan and just break up the major ISPs into smaller companies. Unfortunately, there is no obvious legal way to do that. The Bell breakup resulted from a lot of special circumstances, some plain-as-day antitrust violations, and an 8-year court battle. Moreover, breakup would probably not solve the problem: the wee ISPs would still have local monopolies in many areas, and economics 101 would force them to immediately begin reconsolidating into new national monopolies (as the Baby Bells are doing today). In the long run, the consolidation and price gouging of natural monopolies are probably inevitable. It’s a cold, heartless law of economics: the same laws that allow the government to increase revenues by cutting taxes will eventually compel certain telecom markets to become monopolies, no matter how many times we break them up.

Given that, he notes, the next best option is Title II. He notes, correctly, that the early days of the internet saw growth and investment in broadband thrive under Title II (contrary to claims to the contrary) and how the telcos today still beg to be classified under Title II for parts of their infrastructure:

To sum up, the only reason the Internet isn’t protected from monopolies today is because, in 2002, the FCC decided to experiment with not regulating the Internet. Almost immediately thereafter, the telecoms began fighting the core Internet principle of network neutrality, aiming to take control of the Internet for themselves and impose monopoly prices on consumers. All attempts to restrain them outside of Title II have failed. The Wall Street Journal regularly argues that the Internet has thrived because ISPs have never been regulated like phone companies. This is false, and the Journal should know better. Indeed, the years of the Web’s most explosive growth and development happened under the auspices of strict common carrier regulation, identical to those of phone companies. (Heck, even today, limited portions of Verizon’s high-speed fiber network, FiOS, fall under Title II!)

The fix to the growing monopoly problem is very, very easy, and several courts have pointed to it over the past several years: simply revisit the obviously nonsensical ruling of 2002. Overturn it, and (correctly) decide this time that Internet Service Providers are “telecommunications providers”. Instantly, every ISP in America would go back to common carrier status, and net neutrality regulation wouldn’t just become easy; in many ways, neutrality is baked into Title II. The FCC would gain many tools to reduce the risk of natural monopoly where it doesn’t exist, or its effects where it does. The market would be saved, the consumer freed from the tyranny of monopoly.

His full piece is much longer and well worth reading, but I have one further quibble with it, which gets back to the underlying claim about all of this that Title II is somehow "regulating the internet." It's not. It's never been about that at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's about choosing which form of regulation internet infrastructure will be ruled by. The anti-net neutrality crew like to make this mistake (and they make it often), trying to pretend that internet infrastructure is the internet. It's not. And internet infrastructure has always been heavily regulated, often out of necessity. In order to allow a cable company or a telco to install broadband infrastructure, local cities and towns often did special deals, handing over subsidies, rights of way, pole rights, tax breaks, franchise agreements and other such things to the broadband players. The idea that internet infrastructure has ever been "a free market" is laughable. No matter what kind of infrastructure was being installed, it's always relied on some sort of deal with government in exchange for access. As such, it's entirely sensible to argue that there should be certain requirements in exchange for such public support for their network, and that includes keeping the network itself free and open to use.

And that's really what net neutrality is all about. It's not about "regulating the internet," but making sure that the big broadband players don't "regulate" the internet themselves, by setting up toll booths and other limitations, allowing them to pick the winners and losers. It's about blocking monopolistic powers from putting in place systems to extract monopoly rents that harm the public and limit innovation and consumer surplus. Net neutrality frees the internet from such monopolistic regulations by putting common carrier rules at the infrastructure level to make sure that there's true competition and freedom at the service level. And that makes total sense, because you don't want competition of natural monopolies, you want to make sure natural monopolies don't block competition.

Given that Republicans like to claim that they're pro-innovation, pro-business and pro-competition, they should absolutely be in favor of net neutrality as well because it creates the environment where there will be real competition and innovation at the service level. The argument that they're using against it is to pretend that Title II regulates "the internet" when it really just changes the existing style of regulation for internet infrastructure, preventing a few monopolistic powers from squeezing monopoly rents from everyone else. Normally stopping monopolies is supposed to be a key tenant of conservative economics. It honestly seems like the only reason that isn't the case here is because big broadband lobbyists have carefully spun this tale (and heavily funded some campaigns) to pretend that what they're trying to stop is "regulation of the internet."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>mythshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140916/12114928537Wed, 6 Aug 2014 20:46:25 PDTAttempt To Frame Justin Amash's Protection Of Civil Liberties As 'Supporting Terrorists' Fails Miserably At The PollsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140806/15344028132/attempt-to-frame-justin-amashs-protection-civil-liberties-as-supporting-terrorists-fails-miserably-polls.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140806/15344028132/attempt-to-frame-justin-amashs-protection-civil-liberties-as-supporting-terrorists-fails-miserably-polls.shtmlJustin Amash has been one of the most involved and active voices in Congress on pushing back against the intelligence community's overreach and attack on our civil liberties. Many folks know him for the Amash Amendment, which would have defunded the NSA's bulk collection of phone records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. While it was narrowly defeated, it certainly woke up many in Congress to the fact that the surveillance scandal was a real deal. Over the last year, though, we'd been hearing more and more stories about how the "mainstream Republicans" were looking to unseat Amash in the primaries. Amash is often identified as being in the "Tea Party" wing of the party, and sometimes described as more "libertarian."

The very powerful US Chamber of Commerce targeted Amash as an "easy target" to oust, arguing that his views on civil liberties put him at odds with the (many) conservative voters in his district. The primary attack on him focused heavily on Amash's support for civil liberties, directly arguing that such protection of our civil liberties meant he was "supporting terrorists." Here, for example, is a campaign ad his primary opponent Brian Ellis used against him, quoting someone referring to Amash as "Al Qaeda's best friend in Congress" and claiming Amash wanted to "shut down American intelligence for monitoring terrorists." It quotes a veteran saying: "It makes no sense. We were out there fighting for the country and he's voting against anything that would help us."

It's exactly the kind of campaign that you might expect would work in a heavily conservative, "American values" kind of district that Amash represents, if you believe in the traditional narratives and stereotypes. However, that effort failed miserably, and as Conor Friedersdorf explains, that's a good sign for civil liberties. There's this ridiculous narrative that "conservative" voters are in favor of surveillance and against protecting civil liberties, but that's always been a silly argument. Protecting civil liberties isn't "supporting terrorists," it's a fundamental concept in the Constitution and should be seen as an American value that cuts across any partisan divide.

His easy primary victory already matters because it shows that Republicans who want to rein in the NSA, repeal the Patriot Act, and close the prison at Guantanamo Bay can win a primary vote handily—even in a safe Republican district where a shameless opponent tries to portray them as siding with the enemy.

Amash's victory in the primary gives a bit of hope for civil liberties. It suggests that voters aren't the stereotypical morons that the traditional narratives often make them out to be. They can understand how protecting civil liberties should be a truly American ideal and it doesn't mean you're supporting terrorists. Earlier this year, the Republican National Committee came out against bulk surveillance by the NSA. It's increasingly becoming clear that the narrative that "Republicans have to support surveillance" is not an accurate story at all.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>wake-up-authoritarianshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140806/15344028132Thu, 31 Jul 2014 03:40:00 PDTReclassifying Broadband Under Title II Becoming Politically FeasibleMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140730/13072728059/congressional-political-cover-broadband-reclassification-coming-into-focus.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140730/13072728059/congressional-political-cover-broadband-reclassification-coming-into-focus.shtml
This argument, too, is kind of stupid and typical of the Jay Rosen-coined concept of the "Church of the Savvy," in which the narrative of the politics becomes much more important than the policy itself. In this case, it's pretty clear that the "fight" is happening no matter what rules the FCC comes out with. The politicians opposed to net neutrality have made it clear that they'll oppose any rules that the FCC adopts, including its currently proposed, ridiculously weak, rules under Section 706, which leave the door wide open to destroying net neutrality and creating fast lanes.

Given that, it seems like the FCC has a choice on its hands: (A) go with pretend net neutrality and have Republicans fight like hell against it, or (B) go with real net neutrality rules and have Republicans fight like hell against it. It's difficult to see how choice (A) makes any sense, except that the "savvy" claim has long been that the Democrats didn't have the political will to really fight back against Republicans over Title II (suggesting that they would be more willing to support Wheeler's fake neutrality rules).

But, a funny thing has been happening over the last few weeks, indicating that "the savvy" may not be so "savvy" after all. A bunch of Senators have come out strongly in favor of Title II reclassification. And then the big gun came out: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has basically told activists that he'd support the FCC in a political fight with Republicans if the FCC chooses Title II. Reid, unfortunately, did not go all out, and directly urge the FCC to support Title II, but his statement that he would support "any Open Internet rules" that the FCC comes up with is a pretty clear signal to the FCC that the Democratic Leadership in the Senate wouldn't shy away from supporting Title II, as many had assumed.

It may seem like a small step, but the signalling here is pretty important, because it suggests that the "politically impossible" Title II reclassification is moving towards a political possibility... if the FCC and Chairman Wheeler are actually willing to make that move. In the past, Wheeler has argued that there wasn't enough political support to go with Title II, and that's part of the reason he was leaning on the fake solution of Section 706. But as more and more support in Congress is popping up for Title II, the tide is shifting towards it being a political possibility, even if it still very much depends on if Wheeler is willing to take a stand, or fold like so many previous FCC bosses.

Now, if only some on the Republican side stopped listening to the misleading talking points on this, and took the time to understand why this actually matters, and is so important to businesses and innovation...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>this-can-happenhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140730/13072728059Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:13:53 PDTSenate Republicans, Trying To Score Political Points, Claim Democrats Revealing Spying Scandal Puts Lives At RiskMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140312/13353926554/senate-republicans-trying-to-score-political-points-claim-democrats-revealing-spying-scandal-puts-lives-risk.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140312/13353926554/senate-republicans-trying-to-score-political-points-claim-democrats-revealing-spying-scandal-puts-lives-risk.shtmlspying scandal continues to get more and more ridiculous. The latest is that it's turning into a political fight between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, rather than what it really is: a Constitutional crisis concerning the separation of powers and the ability of Congress to oversee the executive branch's intelligence community. You would think that other Senators would line up behind Senator Feinstein's anger over the CIA directly spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers who were compiling a detailed report into the CIA's use of torture.

But, they're not. This first became clear when the top two Republicans on the Committee more or less spoke out against Feinstein:

Many of the Republicans on the intelligence committee didn't share her position. The panel's top Republican, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said he and Ms. Feinstein "have some disagreements as to what the actual facts are."

Others criticized her for airing her concerns so openly. "I personally don't believe that anything that goes on in the intelligence committee should ever be discussed publicly," said Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.).

Burr's comments are particularly chilling, as he's actually likely to replace Chambliss as the top Republican -- meaning that if the Republicans recapture the Senate, he's likely to take over Feinstein's job as the chair of the Intelligence Committee. Think about all the stonewalling the Committee currently does. Then picture the guy who said that quote above in charge.

And, in the last day it's gone even more haywire, as Burr and other Republicans are now trying to use this as a political gambit to claim that Senator Mark Udall (a Democrat and the one who really called attention to the CIA's actions) somehow leaked classified info in revealing the CIA's actions. According to Politico, even though Republicans have leaked far more info, they see this as a chance to attack Udall, a first term Democrat known for actually standing up for civil liberties and the rights of the public (how dare he):

Republicans say that not only has the committee’s chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), provided selective information to the public about improper CIA conduct, but they are also now pointing the finger at Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

Democrats counter that Republicans are now engaging in a partisan witch hunt aimed at hurting Udall politically and providing cover to the CIA and the George W. Bush’s administration’s handling of the controversial interrogation and detention program.

I've made it clear before few things annoy me more than partisan bickering in Congress (which is why we rarely even mention which party politicians belong to -- unless, as here, it's a part of the story). And this is a particularly stupid issue to have partisan bickering over. Senate Republicans really think that bashing Udall is a better strategy than making sure that they can have real oversight of the CIA without having the CIA spy on their own staff?

Besides even the arguments that Udall revealed sensitive information, or that it deserves an "ethics" review are incredibly weak. The concern stems from the letter Udall sent the President last week concerning the nomination of a new CIA General Counsel. In it, he mentioned the following:

As you are aware, the CIA has recently taken unprecedented action against the Committee in relation to the internal CIA review, and I find these actions to be incredibly troubling for the Committee's oversight responsibilities and for our democracy. It is essential that the Committee be able to do its oversight work -- consistent with our constitutional principle of the separation of powers -- without the CIA posing impediments or obstacles as it is today.

That reveals nothing that appears to be particularly sensitive or classified. Instead, it actually was general enough that it left many people scratching their heads. But to hear Senator Burr talk about it, he acts as if this information puts the lives of people at danger:

“I think Mark did make some public releases that were committee sensitive information, but that’s for the committee internally to handle,” said Burr. “That’s being reviewed right now.”

Burr added: “If you look historically, the committee has cleaned up any mistakes that members have made. Members can do whatever they want to. My concern is that the release of information could potentially causes the losses of life to Americans. That to me, is a threshold that should be addressed.”

Oh come on. Seriously? By mentioning the fact that the CIA searched the network of the Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, it means people will die? Who does he think he's kidding? We know that there are always ridiculous claims whenever there are intelligence community leaks about "lives in danger" (which almost never pan out to be true). But at least in those cases, there's an argument that could be made how the revelations might tie back to national security issues. There is no such thread here at all. This is not about the CIA spying on potential terrorists. It's about them spying on their overseers, and rather than recognize what this means for their own interests Senate Republicans are pretending that its putting people's lives at risk?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>insanityhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140312/13353926554Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:03:00 PSTNSA Defenders Offer Weak Rebuttal Of The RNC's Condemnation Of Mass Surveillance ProgramsTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140127/12271626011/nsa-defenders-offer-weak-rebuttal-rncs-condemnation-mass-surveillance-programs.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140127/12271626011/nsa-defenders-offer-weak-rebuttal-rncs-condemnation-mass-surveillance-programs.shtml
Soon after the Republican National Committee released its surprising condemnation of the NSA's spy programs, a loose confederation of NSA apologists and assorted hangers-on (but only one current legislator) fired off a response letter that claimed everything about the RNC's letter was wrong.

Almost immediately after the Republican National Committee adopted an error-filled resolution attacking the NSA and its telephone metadata program, current and former GOP officials took a strong stand against the resolution.

Well, as "strong" as a stand can be with only one current government worker signing it -- that being Mike Pompeo, one of the members of the House Intelligence Committee. Everyone else are former members of the security beltway, having maintained high-ranking positions in the CIA, DHS and DOJ. So, that particular response is hardly surprising. Michael Hayden (and his boss, Michael Chertoff) and Stewart Baker are the more recognizable names attached.

As Republicans who are familiar with the threat that terrorism still poses to this country, we are compelled to dissent from the ill-considered resolution adopted by the Republican National Committee on January 24 by voice vote.

The Republican National Committee plays a vital role in political campaigns, but it has relatively little expertise in national security. Unfortunately, that lack of expertise is on full display in the resolution. The RNC condemns “the secret surveillance program called PRISM,” and claims that it “monitors [the] searching habits of virtually every American on the internet.” In fact, there is no program that monitors the searches of all Americans. And what has become known as the PRISM program is not aimed at collecting the communications of Americans. It is targeted at the international communications of foreign persons located outside the United States and is precisely the type of foreign-targeted surveillance that Congress approved in 2008 and 2012 when it enacted and reauthorized amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The NSA leaks have shown that programs don't need to be "aimed" at Americans to collect the data and communications of Americans. As long as something is considered "relevant," it can be collected. Not only that, but tons of "incidental" collection occurs as a nature of the untargeted dragnets. The NSA may have minimization processes in place, but they're not infallible and can be easily abused. So, for all the strong wording, this paragraphs reads like little more than the NSA party line. We don't target Americans. (We just somehow end up with a lot of their stuff.)

The errors in the resolution do not end there. The resolution falsely implies that NSA collects and has easy access to telephone metadata, when in fact every search of the data requires a reasonable and articulable suspicion and is strictly limited by the courts, with oversight by the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress.

We've discussed countless times how the intelligence committees' "oversight" has been anything but for years now. And the NSA does have easy access to the metadata. There may only be 20 or so people who can make RAS determination, but there are "up to 125 analysts" who have access to the collected metadata. Accessing the collection is no longer "strictly limited" by the courts. It was at one point, shortly after Judge Walton called a temporary halt to the program in 2009 because of wide-ranging abuse by the agency since the program's inception. These limitations are mentioned in court orders from 2009-2010, but are completely missing from the 2013 Verizon court order leaked to The Guardian back in June. The court appears to have gone back to simply approving the collection every three months and hoping that the NSA isn't backsliding to its pre-March 2009 habits.

The resolution says that the program violates the Constitution, something that will come as news to the many judges who have found to the contrary – and to the Supreme Court, which has said that such limited billing data is not protected by a constitutional expectation of privacy. The resolution’s claim that the program violates section 215 also runs counter to the rulings of practically every court to address the issue.

The "expectation of privacy" is due for a revisit, if for no other reason than the NSA's bulk record collections rely on a questionable reading of pen register/trap and trace statutes -- targeted but expansive collection methods -- that were somehow extrapolated (via FISC Judge Kollar-Kotelly) to cover untargeted and expansive collection methods. As for "many judges" finding the collections constitutional, that's not necessarily true. At this point, we have two federal judges who have issued opposing rulings on that specifically in the past few months. Prior to that, anyone seeking to challenge the NSA's programs simply wasn't granted standing, which makes it nearly impossible to build a comprehensive case history. Having no judge state outright (prior to Judge Leon) that the program is unconstitutional is not the same thing as having "many judges" finding to the contrary.

As far as we can tell, none of these facts was presented to the RNC before it adopted the resolution. It is a shame that the resolution reached the Committee without correction of its many errors.

Worse, the RNC resolution threatens to do great damage to the security of the nation. It would be foolhardy to end the program without ensuring that we remain safe from attack. This database provides a uniquely valuable capability for discovering new phone numbers associated with international terrorist organizations, including numbers that may be used by terrorist cells within the United States. Former Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morrell has testified that having this capability might have prevented 9/11 and could help to prevent the next 9/11.

This again? "Security of the nation." "Prevented 9/11." "Prevent the next 9/11." All claims that are easily debunked. The message is still as stupid as it ever was: trust the same agencies that couldn't prevent the first attack to prevent the next one.

This is not a Democratic or a Republican program. Protecting Americans from terrorism should not be a partisan issue.

Correct, and the one caveat that cannot be completely detached from the RNC's letter.

The program was first launched under President George W. Bush. It was approved by Congressional leaders of both parties. And for good reason. It helps to keep Americans safe.

It was approved by lawmakers operating in a panic after a horrendous terrorist attack, not exactly the best climate for anyone to consider the possible negatives of handing over considerable power to national security agencies and the government itself. No one wanted to be the representative who failed to act or appear to place political partisanship above public safety. Portraying this as some sort of non-partisan "meeting of the minds" glosses over the reality of the situation: panicked legislators shoving through horrendous legislation in order to "do something" in response to the 9/11 attacks. There's nothing heroic or otherwise admirable about the passage of the PATRIOT Act.

It may be appropriate to modify the program in certain respects, if that can be done without a significant loss in effectiveness, but abolishing it without any idea how to close the intelligence gap that 9/11 exposed is not a recipe for partisan advantage. It is a recipe for partisan oblivion.

Count us out.

9/11 only exposed the fact that our nation's intelligence and investigative agencies had access to plenty of data before the attack but collectively made a series of bad decisions that allowed the attacks to occur. The "intelligence gap" was between agencies, not between agencies and their targets. Sweeping up millions of unrelated metadata records doesn't close that gap. All it does is make it harder for those sorting through the mess for actually useful intel to do their jobs.

So, the response is the sort of thing you'd expect from the signing members -- some 9/11 stuff and some "it's all legal" rhetorical flourishes. I'd like to issue this challenge to surveillance advocates -- compose a powerful statement defending the NSA's programs without using the phrase "9/11" for once and see how that goes. It's slipped past "talking point" to "crutch" at this point. This itself would be bad enough, but it's also demonstrably wrong -- and its inevitable deployment in defense of bulk records gives its users all the credibility of "doctors" who specialize in homeopathy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>9/11-ad-infinitumhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140127/12271626011Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:48:52 PSTPeter King Hates Your Civil Liberties; Flips Out About His Own Party Rejecting Unconstitutional Spying On AmericansMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140125/21570125985/peter-king-hates-your-civil-liberties-flips-out-about-his-own-party-rejecting-unconstitutional-spying-americans.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140125/21570125985/peter-king-hates-your-civil-liberties-flips-out-about-his-own-party-rejecting-unconstitutional-spying-americans.shtmlRep. Peter King. Rep. King sees terrorist threats absolutely everywhere -- so long as he believes they're coming from brown people. When it comes to IRA terrorists, he's a big supporter. But the brown kind? Well, to him, they require Americans to give up all civil liberties -- and dare any politicians point to the 4th Amendment? Well, apparently they're unfit for office.

So you have to imagine the sort of brain explosion he must have gone through on Friday, when his own damn party declared the NSA's activities unconstitutional, and demanded that they be stopped -- once again highlighting that King and his colleague Rep. Mike Rogers are on the fringe of the Republican Party: extremists who don't give a shit about the rights of Americans.

And, indeed, upon finding out that his own party actually respects the rights of Americans, King threw a verbal shit-fit, claiming that such respect for the American public is the equivalent of "signing our own death warrant as a party."

“We’re going to make the Democrats and Barack Obama the party of national security,” he said. “It’s signing our own death warrant as a party.”

That seems... unlikely on multiple levels of course. Study after study after study has shown that a very large percentage of the public is quite concerned about NSA overreach. They're less and less concerned about terrorist attacks, since about all that seems to keep happening is the FBI foiling its own plots. Similarly, while
a growing number of liberals are supportive of the government wiping out civil liberties, that seems to be solely because "their guy" is in charge.

I'm honestly baffled as to King's play here. It's long been rumored that he's going to run for President in 2016. Does he honestly think that "fear the brown people" campaign is going to attract very many votes? What happened last week shows, again, that King is a fringe nutball, even within his own party.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>is-this-guy-for-real?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140125/21570125985Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:51:31 PSTRooting For The Laundry: The Absolute Insanity Of Decisions About The NSA Being Made Based On 'Liberal' Or 'Conservative' IdeologyMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140125/22205125986/white-house-rejected-task-forces-suggestions-as-too-liberal-just-as-republicans-make-same-proposal.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140125/22205125986/white-house-rejected-task-forces-suggestions-as-too-liberal-just-as-republicans-make-same-proposal.shtmlviewed the report as "liberal."

“And instead of our report being truly understood as a middle ground, based upon taking into account all of those perspectives on both sides of the spectrum, I think the White House got moved by thinking of our report as a liberal report,” Stone said.

God forbid a supposedly "liberal" President actually do something he considers "liberal." And, indeed, it seemed that his non-proposal in which he pretends to reform NSA surveillance was predicated on not pissing off the hawkish conservatives who tend to support the surveillance state.

So... what happens now that the supposedly conservative, hawkish, surveillance state-loving Republican Party has agreed that the program is unconstitutional and should be shut down?

To some extent, it really does seem to go back to the corruption of power. Those in power always seem to trust themselves not to abuse that power -- and unthinking automaton partisan hacks seem to flip their position based on whether their guy or the other guy is power.

There's been an insanely stupid debate over the past few weeks as to whether or not folks like Ed Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange were somehow "ideologically pure" enough to be supported by liberals -- which highlights the monumentally asinine level of political discourse in the country these days, further highlighted by President Obama rejecting the task force's opinions as being "too liberal."

As can be seen by the flip-flopping of "liberals" and "conservatives" over the surveillance state, the entire concept of those labels is really no different than if you're rooting for the orange team or the yellow team. It's like the old joke about how if you root for a sports team, you're really rooting for the laundry. People focused on whether something is "liberal enough" or "conservative enough" are wasting everyone's time. These issues are not about being "liberal" or "conservative." They're about doing what's right. It's not about partisan politics or which team you play for or root for. It should be about what is best for the country and the wider world in which we live.

It's incredibly disheartening that we seem to live in a world where that aspect is barely considered but what color your team is matters the most.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>up is down, left is righthttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140125/22205125986Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:43:09 PSTSurprise: Republican Party Says NSA Surveillance Programs Are Unconstitutional And Must EndMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140124/10370425980/surprise-republican-party-says-nsa-surveillance-programs-are-unconstitutional-must-end.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140124/10370425980/surprise-republican-party-says-nsa-surveillance-programs-are-unconstitutional-must-end.shtmlpassed a resolution condemning the NSA's bulk collection of phone records and explicitly declaring the program a violation of the 4th Amendment. This is somewhat surprising on multiple levels, not the least of which is that the Republican party, historically, has tended to be much more supportive of the surveillance state. And yet, during the RNC's meeting, not a single member spoke against the following resolution, which then passed with an "overwhelming majority" during the voice vote:

Resolution to Renounce the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Program

WHEREAS, the secret surveillance program called PRISM targets, among other things, the surveillance of U.S. citizens on a vast scale and monitors searching habits of virtually every American on the internet;

WHEREAS, this dragnet program is, as far as we know, the largest surveillance effort ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens, consisting of the mass acquisition of Americans’ call details encompassing all wireless and landline subscribers of the country’s three largest phone companies;

WHEREAS, every time an American citizen makes a phone call, the NSA gets a record of the location, the number called, the time of the call and the length of the conversation, all of which are an invasion into the personal lives of American citizens that violates the right of free speech and association afforded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;

WHEREAS, the mass collection and retention of personal data is in itself contrary to the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, that warrants shall issue only upon probable cause, and generally prevents the American government from issuing modern-day writs of assistance;

WHEREAS, unwarranted government surveillance is an intrusion on basic human rights that threatens the very foundations of a democratic society and this program represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right to privacy and goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act; and

WHEREAS, Republican House Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, an author of the Patriot Act and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee at the time of Section 215′s passage, called the Section 215 surveillance program “an abuse of that law,” writing that, “based on the scope of the released order, both the administration and the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court are relying on an unbounded interpretation of the act that Congress never intended,” therefore be it

RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee encourages Republican lawmakers to enact legislation to amend Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to make it clear that blanket surveillance of the Internet activity, phone records and correspondence — electronic, physical, and otherwise — of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and that violations can be reviewed in adversarial proceedings before a public court;

RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee encourages Republican lawmakers to call for a special committee to investigate, report, and reveal to the public the extent of this domestic spying and the committee should create specific recommendations for legal and regulatory reform ot end unconstitutional surveillance as well as hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this unconstitutional surveillance; and

RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee encourages Republican lawmakers to immediately take action to halt current unconstitutional surveillance programs and provide a full public accounting of the NSA’s date collection programs.

Note that they're not just talking about the Section 215 bulk collection program, but also name PRISM -- which is under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act -- as being problematic (though, most of the resolution does focus on the Section 215 program).

We had mentioned, just recently, that it appeared strictly partisan folks had a tendency to flip positions on surveillance based on whether or not "their guy" was in power, so to some extent this can be seen as a pushback on the fact that there's a Democratic President -- but this is still a huge shift for this to basically be the position of the entire Republican Party. No longer can people claim that it's just the "fringe element" that is arguing for these things or the outlier "libertarian wing."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>didn't-see-that-cominghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140124/10370425980Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:21:23 PDTCISPA Passes The House, As 288 Representatives Don't Want To Protect Your PrivacyMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130418/10170622751/cispa-passes-house-as-288-representatives-dont-want-to-protect-your-privacy.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130418/10170622751/cispa-passes-house-as-288-representatives-dont-want-to-protect-your-privacy.shtmlpretending they care about the public's privacy rights, the House has passed CISPA, 288 votes against 127. The vote breakdown did not go fully along party lines, though it was clearly Republican driven. 196 Republicans voted for it, while just 29 voted against it (despite numerous conservative groups coming out against the bill). The Democrats split down the middle. 92 Dems voted for it and 98 against. If you compare this to last year, it looks like a lot more Democrats went from opposing to being in favor of trampling your privacy rights. Last year, 140 Dems voted against CISPA and only 42 for it. Either way, this seems like a pretty bi-partisan decision to shaft the American public on their privacy rights. That said, there is still the threat of a Presidential veto (though, with the vote today, the House is close to being able to override a veto). The bigger question is now the Senate, which couldn't agree on a cybersecurity bill last year, and has shown no signs of improvement this year. If you want to protect your privacy, it's time to focus on the Senate, and make sure they know not to pass a privacy-destroying bill like CISPA.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>all-the-others-are-just-14-year-olds-in-their-basementhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130418/10170622751Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:46:45 PSTDon't Let Retraction Distract From The Simple Fact: GOP Copyright Policy Brief Was BrilliantMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121118/23364521085/dont-let-retraction-distract-simple-fact-gop-copyright-policy-brief-was-brilliant.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121118/23364521085/dont-let-retraction-distract-simple-fact-gop-copyright-policy-brief-was-brilliant.shtmlpulled its report on copyright reform after some entertainment industry lobbyists hit the phones/emails late Friday/early Saturday (and, no, it wasn't directly to RSC, for the most part, but to "friendly" members asking them to express their "displeasure" with the report to the RSC leadership). But we shouldn't let that distract from the simple fact that the report was brilliant -- perhaps the most insightful and thoughtful piece of scholarship on copyright to come out of a government body in decades. You can still read the whole thing as uploaded to Archive.org.

It seems unlikely that the RSC will bring it back, despite the quality of the report. But one hopes that the massive outpouring of support (seriously, just check Twitter) will lead politicians from both parties to recognize that sensible and smart copyright reform is a topic that gets people excited -- and one thing they're sick of is decades of both parties simply falling all over themselves to distort copyright to favor a few dominant Hollywood players.

Because the GOP has chickened out, we're going to try to do a series of posts analyzing the various aspects of the report, starting with the three myths about copyright it debunks, followed by four policy recommendations, to see if we can further the discussion. Look for those posts in the coming days and weeks.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>don't forget ithttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121118/23364521085Mon, 5 Nov 2012 11:54:46 PSTWhy Do Both Major Parties Suck So Badly On Civil Liberties?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121105/07570620933/why-do-both-major-parties-suck-so-badly-civil-liberties.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121105/07570620933/why-do-both-major-parties-suck-so-badly-civil-liberties.shtmlignore that President Obama has been worse in many ways (despite many public promises to the contrary). We've already noted that the Democratic Party -- which had fixing civil liberties abuses in its 2008 platform -- has removed all traces of that from the new platform. You would think that, for those who believe strongly in civil liberties, this would be a major concern. Rather than fix them, President Obama continued or expanded many of the very questionable policies of his predecessor, and then added a number of terrifying new ones.

Of course, if civil liberties is the issue you vote over, the other major party offers you no help either (as you should already know, based on Bush's presidency). As Adam Serwer notes, when debating issues of civil liberties, there really is no significant choice between Obama and Romney on this particular issue. There may be some differences at the margins, but that's about it.

Serwer's piece argues that much of this is driven by the American public, who seem particularly fond of giving up our own civil liberties in the face of non-stop fear mongering about terrorism. It seems likely that there is also something to the fact that, once in power, people generally don't like to scale back their own ability to "do stuff." Either way, it amazes me that avid supporters of one side or the other, who absolutely hate the idea of the "other side" getting into power, never seem concerned about how the other side will make use of the same policies they put in place to support themselves.

There are, of course, real differences in many of the other policies from the two candidates, but the lack of significant differences on civil liberties is a real shame. We should demand better.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>power-corrupts?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121105/07570620933Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:39:48 PDTBoth Major Parties Are In 'Vigorous' Denial About The Need For Copyright & Patent ReformMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120905/08224320282/both-major-parties-are-vigorous-denial-about-need-copyright-patent-reform.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120905/08224320282/both-major-parties-are-vigorous-denial-about-need-copyright-patent-reform.shtmlRepublican's platform on internet freedom, noting that the MPAA's endorsement of it showed that it wasn't recognizing the importance of fixing copyright law, rather than expanding it. And, of course, we've now been pointing out significant issues with the Democrat's platform as well. Once again, on internet and innovation issues it falls down completely when it comes to copyright and patent issues.

But the reality is that neither party is willing to take a really principled stand on the need to reform copyright and patent laws in the name of freedom and innovation. That's not surprising, really. Doing so in either party would upset some of the "old guard" who tend to donate a lot of money to political campaigns. But, from the viewpoint of what really matters when it comes to internet freedom and innovation, it's yet another sign that the major parties don't want to deal with reality.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>meaning-they-want-to-please-legacy-fundershttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120905/08224320282Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:31:21 PDTWant To Know How Weak The GOP's Internet Freedom Platform Is? The MPAA Loves ItMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/02265920216/want-to-know-how-weak-gops-internet-freedom-platform-is-mpaa-loves-it.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/02265920216/want-to-know-how-weak-gops-internet-freedom-platform-is-mpaa-loves-it.shtmlskeptical of the GOP's claims about supporting "internet freedom," and it seems that our concerns have been more or less confirmed by the fact that the MPAA seems positively thrilled by the GOP's official position on internet freedom. If the MPAA is pleased with someone's policy outline for the internet, you can bet that it's bad policy. Here's what Chris Dodd had to say:

The Republican Party platform language strikes a very smart balance: it emphasizes the importance of us doing more as a nation to protect our intellectual property from online theft while underscoring the critical importance of protecting internet freedom. As the party points out, the internet has been for its entire existence a source of innovation, and it is intellectual property that helps drive that innovation. Copyright is the cornerstone of innovation; it allows creators to benefit from what they create. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- herself once a Republican elected official -- wrote, '[I]t should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.'

I agree wholeheartedly with my friends in the Republican Party that we must protect the free flow of information on the internet while also protecting American innovators. It is imperative to our national economy and our national identity that we protect an internet that works for everyone.

As he is prone to doing, Dodd is presenting a very distorted version of history and intellectual property. There is no evidence (none, zip, zilch, zero) that "intellectual property helps drive innovation." Historically, it's been shown that competition and need is what drives innovation -- whereas intellectual property laws tend to lock in place legacy players, holding back disruptive innovation. Either way, the MPAA's support pretty much shows that the Republican's "internet freedom" platform isn't serious.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>which-means-it's-not-at-all-about-internet-freedomhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120830/02265920216Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:22:56 PDTGOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language... But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet PornMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/01411320177/gop-platform-may-include-internet-freedom-language-also-wants-crackdown-internet-porn.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/01411320177/gop-platform-may-include-internet-freedom-language-also-wants-crackdown-internet-porn.shtmlpush to get both major political parties in the US to adopt language around internet freedom in their official platforms. With the RNC Convention happening, there's been some news that they are, in fact, putting in some internet freedom language, but the specifics do matter. The Daily Caller report indicated that the language was based on the manifesto that Ron Paul and Rand Paul released a few weeks ago, which had serious problems (such as arguing that the public domain was a "collectivist plot" and that the end-to-end principles of the internet were also some sort of awful conspiracy). One would hope that cooler heads would prevail.

Of course, at the same time, there are numerous reports saying that the same GOP platform will include significant anti-porn language. The GOP has had anti-child porn language before, which makes sense, but they're expanding it to porn in general. And it's being cheered on by various groups who seem... a little excessively happy about this (you should see some of the press releases I've been getting from groups in favor of this). They argue that porn, in general, is "a major, major problem." And Mitt Romney seems to support this, arguing that "every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography."

No matter what you think of pornography, it's hard to square the idea of supporting internet freedom (or freedom of speech in general) with mandatory filters. Porn filters already exist and are widely available in the market. For those who wish to put them on their computers, it's not like they have a lack of options. To make them mandatory seems highly questionable, and it's difficult to see how one can argue for both internet freedom and mandatory filters at the same time.

Of course, this is politics that we're talking about, where it's pretty common to hold two completely conflicting viewpoints at the same time. I expect we'll see similar contradictions in a couple weeks when the Democrats hold their convention as well...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>no-freedom-to-get-offhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120828/01411320177Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:27:19 PDTBoth Republicans And Democrats Considering Supporting Basic Internet Freedom Principles With New PlatformsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120815/12015620061/both-republicans-democrats-considering-supporting-basic-internet-freedom-principles-with-new-platforms.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120815/12015620061/both-republicans-democrats-considering-supporting-basic-internet-freedom-principles-with-new-platforms.shtmlurging both parties to add basic internet freedom issues to their official platforms. According to US News, both parties are considering it, with the Republicans saying they'll be discussing the topic at the RNC, while the Democrats have said that early drafts of their platform "advocated Internet freedom globally," though its unclear if the provision remained in.

Either way, both seem to at least recognize that this the internet is a major area of interest for a very large number of voters.

That said, just having it in a party platform may be a bit meaningless if they don't live up to it. But recognizing the issue is, at the very least, a first step in truly understanding how important it is. I doubt very much that the leadership of either party truly understands the importance of internet freedom, or is really willing to go all out in support of it. Yet. But, building up interest and general support -- along with the recognition that voters care about this stuff -- is at least an important first step in having politicians recognize that they can't just sell out internet freedom when lobbyists or "friendly" repressive governments come calling.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>follow-through-mattershttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120815/12015620061Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:59:00 PDTStupid Politics As Usual To Drive The CISPA NarrativeMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120425/13580618658/stupid-politics-as-usual-to-drive-cispa-narrative.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120425/13580618658/stupid-politics-as-usual-to-drive-cispa-narrative.shtmlveto CISPA, the House has now turned this into a partisan fight. As with IP issues, I tend to think it's dangerous and stupid when privacy fights become partisan. Once the debate is partisan, it seems to lose all sense of reason and perspective and just degrades into name calling. And there's a chance exactly that is happening with CISPA and other cybersecurity bills, as the Republicans are "daring" the Democrats to support these bills, with the political calculus being that if they don't support these bills and something terrible happens (planes falling from the sky, etc.) that they can then blame the Democrats for being soft on cybercrime. That narrative, of course, ignores the very real privacy concerns that are being raised by a variety of parties. It effectively shifts the entire debate away from finding a real solution, and into a situation where some are pressured to accept a bad solution for the sake of political optics.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>unfortunatehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120425/13580618658Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:15:18 PSTSenator Leahy Hands Republicans A Gift By Giving Them Credit For Delaying Vote On PIPA/SOPAMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/04252717523/senator-leahy-hands-republicans-gift-giving-them-credit-delaying-vote-pipasopa.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/04252717523/senator-leahy-hands-republicans-gift-giving-them-credit-delaying-vote-pipasopa.shtmlreally bad on IP issues... happy to give industries greater and greater monopoly rights for no good reason. However, we noted an interesting thing happening on the way to the collapse of PIPA and SOPA: the Republicans were first to come together as a party and decide to speak out against these bills, recognizing the groundswell of public interest. That resulted in Republican leadership coming out against the bills, and Republican Presidential candidates all rejecting the approach in the bill. The Democrats, who have traditionally been considered more "internet friendly," simply couldn't bring themselves to go against Hollywood and unions -- two regular allies.

However, as many more net savvy Democrats have explained, this appears to be a major miscalculation on the part of Democratic party leadership -- potentially losing an entire younger generation of voters to the Republicans. Already, mutliple strategists have been suggesting that the Republican Party use this as a chance to cozy up with Silicon Valley, despite its typically "blue" leanings (though, generally with a strong libertarian bent). It certainly appears that the Republicans are ready to do just that. House majority leader, Eric Cantor recently tweeted about meeting with Sergey Brin.

The Democratic leadership, however, still doesn't seem to recognize the importance of the tech community and the wider internet. Rather than learning anything from what happened last week, PIPA sponsor Senator Leahy is actually trying to blame the Republicans for killing PIPA. It's (yet again) an amazingly tone deaf response. It's as if he's pushing the internet and the tech community right into the Republicans' arms. Perhaps he's making a bet that those constituencies don't matter as much as Hollywood... but that seems like a pretty risky bet to make.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>do-these-people-have-no-clue?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120124/04252717523Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:00:26 PSTCrowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPAMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/19455917483/crowd-cheers-loudly-as-all-four-gop-candidates-say-no-to-sopapipa.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/19455917483/crowd-cheers-loudly-as-all-four-gop-candidates-say-no-to-sopapipa.shtmland all four came out against them. Of course, this seems to fit with the new GOP positioning that they're the anti-SOPA/PIPA party (so sorry Lamar Smith...). Mediaite has the video:

And here's a transcript of what each candidate said:

Gingrich: "You are asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood? I am weighing it and thinking fondly of the many left wing people that I am so eager to protect. On the other hand, you have so many people that are technologically advanced such as Google and You Tube and Facebook that say this is totally going to mess up the Internet. The bill in its current form is written really badly and leads to a range of censorship that is totally unacceptable. I believe in freedom and think that we have a patent office, copyright law and if a company believes it has generally been infringed upon it has the right to sue. But the idea that we have the government start preemptively start censoring the Internet and corporations' economic interest is exactly the wrong thing to do."

Romney: "The law as written is far too expansive, far too intrusive and far too threatening of freedom of speech and information carried across the Internet. It would have a depressing impact on one of the fastest growing industries in America. I care deeply about intellectual content going across the Internet and if we can find a way to very narrowly go after those people who are pirating especially those offshore. But a very broad law that gives the government the power to start saying who can pass what to whom, I say no and I am standing for freedom."

Paul: "I am one of the first Republicans to oppose this law and so glad that sentiment has mellowed up here as Republicans have been on the wrong side of this issue and this is a good example on why its good to have someone who can look at civil liberties ... freedom and the constitution bring people together."

Santorum: "I do not support this law and believe it goes too far. But I will not agree with everyone that there isn't something that should be done to protect the intellectual content of people. The internet is not a free zone where anyone can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people. Particularly when we are talking about entities off shore. The idea that the government has no role to protect the intellectual property of this company, that's not right. The idea that anything goes on the Internet? Who has that idea. Property rights should be respected."

But, really the most interesting part of what happened was not the candidates answering the question, but the audience's response. When John King asked the question and gave a brief explanation of SOPA/PIPA... he also mentioned that CNN's parent company, Time Warner, supported the bill... and the crowd booed loudly. When the candidates -- particularly Gingrich and Paul -- made their claims, the crowd cheered loudly.

The people who are still brushing off the whole protest as "an internet thing" or (even more ridiculous) "a Google thing," still don't seem to realize. Pretty much the entire public has turned against these kinds of bills.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>national-issuehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120119/19455917483Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:46:47 PSTSenate Minority Leader McConnell Tells Reid/Leahy To Kill PIPAMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/14311717474/senate-minority-leader-mcconnell-tells-reidleahy-to-kill-pipa.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/14311717474/senate-minority-leader-mcconnell-tells-reidleahy-to-kill-pipa.shtmlcalling on Democrats to drop PIPA. That has a high likelihood of killing off what little Republican support is left for PIPA, because where McConnell goes, so go most Republican Senate votes. As we predicted this morning, it's looking like this is becoming a partisan issue -- with the Republicans lined up with internet users... and Democrats lined up with a couple of big Hollywood studios who don't want to innovate. The real shame in that, of course, is that for many, many months, the only person keeping PIPA from moving forward was Senator Ron Wyden -- a Democrat... and it appears his entire party has totally abandoned him. I'm still worried this now becomes a partisan issue, but it's still pretty stunning that Democratic leadership appears to have made a really, really bad calculation on the politics of this bill.

“While we must combat the on-line theft of intellectual property, current proposals in Congress raise serious legal, policy and operational concerns. Rather than prematurely bringing the Protect IP Act to the Senate floor, we should first study and resolve the serious issues with this legislation. Considering this bill without first doing so could be counterproductive to achieving the shared goal of enacting appropriate and additional tools to combat the theft of intellectual property. I encourage the Senate Majority to reconsider its decision to proceed to this bill.”

Reading between the standard DC political lines... McConnell is making this partisan.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>ouchhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120119/14311717474Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:45:00 PSTAre Democrats About To Lose An Entire Generation Of Voters By Pushing PIPA/SOPA Forward?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/10044417471/are-democrats-about-to-lose-entire-generation-voters-pushing-pipasopa-forward.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/10044417471/are-democrats-about-to-lose-entire-generation-voters-pushing-pipasopa-forward.shtmlnon-partisan discussion. It's not bi-partisan and it's not partisan. It's just non-partisan. The debate has nothing to do with traditional Democrat or Republican lines. This has confused cable news, who has a script to follow, but doesn't know what to do with strange bedfellows. However, some people have noticed an interesting thing in the response to yeseterdays' protests: it was mostly Republicans who moved decisively away from PIPA and SOPA. While a few Democrats did so, many took hedging steps -- saying they "heard concerns" and would "work to fix" things -- but still supporting the bill. This is -- quite reasonably -- infuriating internet savvy Democrats who point out that the party is on the verge of losing an entire younger generation by supporting not just this legislation, but the corrupt process that created it:

If you keep reading that story, the Democrats listed all remain adamant that they'll remain co-sponsors of the legislation but work to "fix it".

Bullshit.

It's been a while since we've seen Democrats this tone deaf, this oblivious to political reality.

You have an entire wired generation focused on this issue like a laser, fighting like hell to protect their online freedoms, and it's FUCKING REPUBLICANS who are playing the heroes by dropping support?

Those goddam Democrats would rather keep collecting their Hollywood checks, than heed the will of millions of Americans who have lent their online voice in an unprecedented manner.

Are they really this stupid? Can they really be this idiotic?

Indeed. Even worse, there are rumors that the White House itself may flip flop on its earlier statements, and pretend that any "new" deal meets the standard it set with last week's announcement. If true, it seems that the White House and the Democratic Party are making the bet that young people really aren't paying attention to this issue. It seems to me that that's a huge miscalculation on their part.

Those pushing for this quick solution don't seem to have understood the protests yesterday. They weren't protesting this bill per se. They were protesting the entire process through which these bills were made. Using the same backroom dealing to come out with another bill... and pretend that "all stakeholders" had been heard from and were in agreement seems like a very, very dangerous position to stake out.

Over the last few years, the Democrats have been considered the party who "got" the internet much more than the Republicans. Is that about to switch?